Hate speech

[krAbs]

That comic is actually how the law works in Germany, which is interesting.

That being said, hate speech should be and is totally legal. In much the same way as it is totally legal to tell neo nazis that they are less than human pieces of trash wasting the oxygen around them.

 

Edit- To be clear, its not even a matter of worrying about what whoever in charge would qualify as hate speech. Its more that freedom of political expression is a necessary (but not sufficient) part of having a functional democratically influenced system.

[floplag]

40 minutes ago, failos said:

Liberals think everything is hate speech. 

Identity politics will be the end of this country.

I would love for politicians to just focus on the economy, security, and infrastructure instead of lecturing us on how to think or whatever bullshit they are whining about with the statues.

i 100% agree with this, its the worst thing in decades when the Dems turned it into this to elect Obama and made every criticism of him about race during his administration.   Only made worse by recent events.  The last 10 years took us back perhaps 50 years socially and did far more harm than can even be quantified today.  Its going to get even worse as its just being stoked over and over. 

[UndertheHalo]

The idea that democrats are on their own with, or even invented indentity politics is such a ridiculous exaggeration. 

Thats a two way street guys.  Conservatives are equally guilty.  

And some of the vitriol directed towards Obama was absolutely racially motivated. 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Rico]

On 8/15/2017 at 7:25 PM, wopphil said:

Unreal. The liberals who call for such speech restriction are as fascist as the Nazis they oppose.

 

[mtangelsfan]

So RICO, what is it do you propose?  How would you define intolerant speech?

skip the memes and give a real answer

[UndertheHalo]

In England and Wales the law is know as public order act 1986 and reads as follows: 

In England and Wales the Public Order Act 1986prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

And in Canada. 

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.^[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate 

[mtangelsfan]

Those give absolutely no definition.  Who decides?

[UndertheHalo]

I just put it there for reference man. 

Obviously a court would determine whether the speech violates what they call hate speech. 

[mtangelsfan]

This kind of federal power doesn't concern you?

[UndertheHalo]

Well, let me again reiterate that I don't feel like I have a good opinion on this topic beyond it being worthy of debate.  

That said, I generally have faith that our courts serve adequately for the purpose of interpreting our laws.  I don't think it would be impossible for a law to be put on the books, that could reasonably identify "hate speech".  

I mentioned earlier, I don't think countries like Canada or the U.K are. free speech death zones.  While probably imperfect, they have these kinds of laws and maintain a relatively good level of tolerating freedom of expression. 

i guess the question remains whether what is gained is worth the price.  I'm not sure.  Obviously, dangerous hate groups endure in these places.  Even with the laws. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

You don't get rights back.  The idea of giving the Feds the ability to limit one of our foundational rights is terrifying.  They are not worthy of that kind of trust.

[UndertheHalo]

That's a fair position. 

[krAbs]

13 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You don't get rights back.  The idea of giving the Feds the ability to limit one of our foundational rights is terrifying.  They are not worthy of that kind of trust.

Next thing you know we are going to have a president trying to strip back the powers of the free press.

[floplag]

2 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

The idea that democrats are on their own with, or even invented indentity politics is such a ridiculous exaggeration. 

Thats a two way street guys.  Conservatives are equally guilty.  

And some of the vitriol directed towards Obama was absolutely racially motivated. 

 

Very true, but in recent years they have absolutely taken full advantage of the idea consciously and intentionally.  some of the stuff was racial, a lot that was accused of being racial wasnt even close but they couldnt counter it any other way so it HAD to be racist.  
As you say, a two way street, one both have traveled heavily, but i do hold the Dems more accountable in recent years.

[mtangelsfan]

14 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Next thing you know we are going to have a president trying to strip back the powers of the free press.

And he will take more if allowed

[UndertheHalo]

6 minutes ago, floplag said:

• 3 minutes ago, floplag said:

Very true, but in recent years they have absolutely taken full advantage of the idea consciously and intentionally.  some of the stuff was racial, a lot that was accused of being racial wasnt even close but they couldnt counter it any other way so it HAD to be racist.  
As you say, a two way street, one both have traveled heavily, but i do hold the Dems more accountable in recent years.

I mean that's fair, I don't agree but we each have our own lenses.  I think the republicans have very actively utilized identity politics right along side the democrats. 

Ill concede that to some degree some people would weaponize the race thing when they were unwilling or unable to defend the substance of Obama's policies.  That said, I don't think that it was a major issue for the most part. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I mean that's fair, I don't agree but we each have our own lenses.  I think the republicans have very actively utilized identity politics right along side the democrats. 

Ill concede that to some degree some people would weaponize the race thing when they were unwilling or unable to defend the substance of Obama's policies.  That said, I don't think that it was a major issue for the most part. 

Absolutely they both do it.

[Rico]

In my view, freedom of speech only applies to freedom of being prosecuted by the government.  It doesn't mean  that universities, towns, and Twitter have to give these guys a platform for their hate speech.  That is where I stand.

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, Rico said:

In my view, freedom of speech only applies to freedom of being prosecuted by the government.  It doesn't mean  that universities, towns, and Twitter have to give these guys a platform for their hate speech.  That is where I stand.

Then I totally agree, except for government run universities.

[floplag]

22 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I mean that's fair, I don't agree but we each have our own lenses.  I think the republicans have very actively utilized identity politics right along side the democrats. 

Ill concede that to some degree some people would weaponize the race thing when they were unwilling or unable to defend the substance of Obama's policies.  That said, I don't think that it was a major issue for the most part. 

You must have been a staunch Obama supporter, i was not.  To be clear I voted for him but i did not like his evolution and over time became critical and as i did the racist accusations and labels came out in full force. 

Yes, they both do it, always have though it seems significantly more polarizing of late and has become more about racism, sexism, and ethnicity than actual issues more than another other time i can remember in my life.  

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

In England and Wales the law is know as public order act 1986 and reads as follows: 

In England and Wales the Public Order Act 1986prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

 

 

 

I'm all for prohibiting speach that is threatening.  Speech that is abusive?  Eh ... that's a little muddy.  If the abusive language starts to become threatening, ok.  But prohibiting insulting words or behavior?  Please!  And by the way, you need only read any British press/paper to know that they don't follow this.  Their press is brutal!  Insults is a foundational cornerstone for them.

 

 

 

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Let's just keep things the way they used to be. You can say whatever it is you want, but if you upset people too much someone will throw a brick through your window in the middle of the night.

[Tank]

14 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Let's just keep things the way they used to be. You can say whatever it is you want, but if you upset people too much someone will throw a brick through your window in the middle of the night.

what size brick? who gets to throw it? does it have to be exactly in the MIDDLE of the night? how close can they stand to the structure at which they are throwing? is it okay for a left-hander to throw? does a note have to be attached to the brick, or can something be written on it with a marker of some sort?

[AngelsLakersFan]

19 minutes ago, Tank said:

what size brick? who gets to throw it? does it have to be exactly in the MIDDLE of the night? how close can they stand to the structure at which they are throwing? is it okay for a left-hander to throw? does a note have to be attached to the brick, or can something be written on it with a marker of some sort?

The law will state that every offended individual is allowed to place one pebble (defined as being no greater than 3mm across at the longest point) into a pile, at which point said pile will be ground up into a 90/10 pebble to cement mixture (cement mixture or mixing materials mustn't be provided by any government official or representative) that cannot exceed 4in x 3in x 9in. Upon hardening, said 'brick' will be placed inside any non-motorized vehicle, where it will be authorized to leave it's location at 10 PM sharp. Upon arriving at it's destination (the residency of said offender), and this part is important, NO LATER THAN SUNRISE the following morning, an elected representative (of the offended party), be they righty or southpaw, is authorized to throw said brick, and only said brick (no addendums) through a window of his choosing, at a distance ze determines.